2016 League Post Game Results Here

[gamerman01]

Giallo has played 19 games as Allies in 2nd edition and cdnranger has played nothing but Axis.  I’m wondering how much that has to do with their current standings in the rankings…… maybe not much, I don’t know, just wondering

[gamerman01]

18 in a row!  That makes me wonder if this game is as out of balance as the original one in the 1980’s was for the Allies!?!

[gamerman01]

If Me1945 resigns it will be 19…… my oh my

[Zhukov44]

If accurate ratings are desired, then we should use 2 game series with the same bid for all league rated play.  Same with balanced mod games.

The way the league ratings are structured, E or M players are to some extent disincentivized from playing Allies because that threatens their ability to make the playoff.

Experience = higher bids.  Masters and elites are getting easy Axis wins against overly low bids.  The solution is 2 games at an agreed upon bid.

[variance]

play balance mod, 1 game axis 1 game allies.

[CdnRanger]

@Gamerman01:

Giallo has played 19 games as Allies in 2nd edition and cdnranger has played nothing but Axis.  I’m wondering how much that has to do with their current standings in the rankings…… maybe not much, I don’t know, just wondering

I guess I need to try a game as Allies….  :-)  Or play balanced mod -

[Soulblighter]

@Zhukov44:

If accurate ratings are desired, then we should use 2 game series with the same bid for all league rated play.  Same with balanced mod games.

The way the league ratings are structured, E or M players are to some extent disincentivized from playing Allies because that threatens their ability to make the playoff.

Experience = higher bids.  Masters and elites are getting easy Axis wins against overly low bids.  The solution is 2 games at an agreed upon bid.

I disagree Zhukov. I don’t mind playing with the allies and I am certain I am not the only M E tier that is willing to do that, but I do want a high bid to play with them. The basic game just favors the Axis to much. So the allies need the bid, but we all know this already and have known this for quite some time. Secondly. Complaining about overly low bids is pointless. It takes two to tango.

[Shin-Ji]

BerntBernt (Allies) STOMPS Shin Ji (Axis) in a Balance Mod game.

A crazy strong Italy will only take you so far, it seems.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37515.new#new

[gamerman01]

@CdnRanger:

@Gamerman01:

Giallo has played 19 games as Allies in 2nd edition and cdnranger has played nothing but Axis.  I’m wondering how much that has to do with their current standings in the rankings…… maybe not much, I don’t know, just wondering

I guess I need to try a game as Allies….  :-)  Or play balanced mod -

Hey, man, keep taking Axis in 2nd edition!  It’s working for you!!

[gamerman01]

Shin Ji, I’ll have that result recorded within hours - I was just here long enough to check the boards quick

[Snigg]

Snigg (Axis) forfeits to MrRoboto (Allies +21)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37271.new#new

I find it nearly impossible to truly follow the game when only half your opponents turns are posted to review.

Yes, you can view history in TripleA, but it’s no where as easy or apparent what has happened at a glance to me.

[MrRoboto]

Huh, I am sorry, Snigg. I never even read the forum post to be honest, I find the tripleA history a thousand times better.

I can’t understand at all, how the tripleA history doesn’t enable one to check what has happened.

But as I said - sorry for that. I simply hate to wait for 15 seconds 3 times instead of 1 time. I am playing more than 1 game at a time, sometimes even more than 10. It adds up and is just annoying to wait for the posting process with USA and China and so far I didn’t see the necessity to post them.

I don’t know if you asked me to post USA, China and Anzac, before. You might have, maybe I forgot, you could have asked me again. It was not intentionally to disturb you.

[regularkid]

agree with Roboto

[Zhukov44]

@Soulblighter:

@Zhukov44:

If accurate ratings are desired, then we should use 2 game series with the same bid for all league rated play.  Same with balanced mod games.

The way the league ratings are structured, E or M players are to some extent disincentivized from playing Allies because that threatens their ability to make the playoff.

Experience = higher bids.  Masters and elites are getting easy Axis wins against overly low bids.  The solution is 2 games at an agreed upon bid.

I disagree Zhukov. I don’t mind playing with the allies and I am certain I am not the only M E tier that is willing to do that, but I do want a high bid to play with them. The basic game just favors the Axis to much. So the allies need the bid, but we all know this already and have known this for quite some time. Secondly. Complaining about overly low bids is pointless. It takes two to tango.

Well I agree.  I like playing Allies and want a high bid.  But while I always make what I consider a reasonable bid for Allies, few players are prepared to give me the bid I want.  So most of my league games I play Axis.

The thing is, knowledge (via experience) of the Axis advantage gives me an advantage in bidding against the less experienced player who thinks a 20 bid is really high.  Yet this also deprives me (and others) of opportunities to play Allies in the league.  The only way to get Allies is to take Allies for less than they are worth, and if I do that too often I’ll lose my high ranking.

So to some extent the bidding system is working against the cause of accurate ratings because bids are not going up as fast as they should have.  2 game series at the same bid would fix the problem.

[Soulblighter]

@Zhukov44:

@Soulblighter:

@Zhukov44:

If accurate ratings are desired, then we should use 2 game series with the same bid for all league rated play.  Same with balanced mod games.

The way the league ratings are structured, E or M players are to some extent disincentivized from playing Allies because that threatens their ability to make the playoff.

Experience = higher bids.  Masters and elites are getting easy Axis wins against overly low bids.  The solution is 2 games at an agreed upon bid.

I disagree Zhukov. I don’t mind playing with the allies and I am certain I am not the only M E tier that is willing to do that, but I do want a high bid to play with them. The basic game just favors the Axis to much. So the allies need the bid, but we all know this already and have known this for quite some time. Secondly. Complaining about overly low bids is pointless. It takes two to tango.

Well I agree.  I like playing Allies and want a high bid.  But while I always make what I consider a reasonable bid for Allies, few players are prepared to give me the bid I want.  So most of my league games I play Axis.

The thing is, knowledge (via experience) of the Axis advantage gives me an advantage in bidding against the less experienced player who thinks a 20 bid is really high.  Yet this also deprives me (and others) of opportunities to play Allies in the league.  The only way to get Allies is to take Allies for less than they are worth, and if I do that too often I’ll lose my high ranking.

So to some extent the bidding system is working against the cause of accurate ratings because bids are not going up as fast as they should have.  2 game series at the same bid would fix the problem.

I get where you are coming from, but if you know you will steamroll an opponent at +20, you can always give them a higher bid to make the game more challenging. Like I said before. It takes two to tango. Personally I enjoy the challenging games the most as winning or even losing such games is much more full fulling.

[regularkid]

@Zhukov44:

@Soulblighter:

@Zhukov44:

If accurate ratings are desired, then we should use 2 game series with the same bid for all league rated play.  Same with balanced mod games.

The way the league ratings are structured, E or M players are to some extent disincentivized from playing Allies because that threatens their ability to make the playoff.

Experience = higher bids.  Masters and elites are getting easy Axis wins against overly low bids.  The solution is 2 games at an agreed upon bid.

Assuming the pro-axis imbalance persisted for individual games, wouldn’t your idea make rankings a less reliable indicator of actual skill (including initial bid making) because

I disagree Zhukov. I don’t mind playing with the allies and I am certain I am not the only M E tier that is willing to do that, but I do want a high bid to play with them. The basic game just favors the Axis to much. So the allies need the bid, but we all know this already and have known this for quite some time. Secondly. Complaining about overly low bids is pointless. It takes two to tango.

Well I agree.  I like playing Allies and want a high bid.  But while I always make what I consider a reasonable bid for Allies, few players are prepared to give me the bid I want.  So most of my league games I play Axis.

The thing is, knowledge (via experience) of the Axis advantage gives me an advantage in bidding against the less experienced player who thinks a 20 bid is really high.  Yet this also deprives me (and others) of opportunities to play Allies in the league.  The only way to get Allies is to take Allies for less than they are worth, and if I do that too often I’ll lose my high ranking.

So to some extent the bidding system is working against the cause of accurate ratings because bids are not going up as fast as they should have.  2 game series at the same bid would fix the problem.

You’d wind up with a lot of tied matches even between players at different skill levels (with axis winning both of the two games). Seems like a lot of work just to get to a tie

[regularkid]

@regularkid:

I like playing Allies and want a high bid.  But while I always make what I consider a reasonable bid for Allies, few players are prepared to give me the bid I want.  So most of my league games I play Axis.

I’m always curious to hear Masters’ perspectives on this: Assuming equally matched players skill wise (say, tier 1 or higher), how much would you say Allies are worth for a bid?

[JDOW]

In case 2 very high skilled players play a BO1 for the championship and assuming both at fully confident with their Axis play I believe 30+ bids are necessary.

I also think the reason many players still take the Allies is because losing with Axis is somehow more painful. When taking the Allies there is still that excuse in the head “well, axis is overpowered anyway so I chose the harder way and I can blame Larry”. When playing Axis there are NO excuses, “Larry gave you the advantage and you still messed it up, you failed”

Something like that I guess^^

[Zhukov44]

@regularkid:

You’d wind up with a lot of tied matches even between players at different skill levels (with axis winning both of the two games). Seems like a lot of work just to get to a tie

Assuming that happens, the bid would go up alot faster than it would under single games.  The reason Allies still win alot of games is because some players (f.e. Adam514) are good enough with Allies that they can overcome the Allied disadvantage against all but the most skilled opponents.  Anyway, those players who could score Allied wins in this scenario (going 2-0) would be, correctly, ranked the highest.  Eventually, the bid would get up to the point where the Allied win % approaches 50%, making it difficult to win with the Axis as well.

See the TripleA ladder ratings for a concrete example of what I’m talking about.

[Zhukov44]

P.S.

As I mentioned above, I’d wager that using this 2-game series method would be the quickest way to discover which side the Balanced Mod adjustments currently favor.